The shooting of the staff of the Charlie Hebdo magazine by Muslim extremists was an abhorable act of savagery and an affront to free speech. As a result of this, the magazine and its slain staff have been elevated to the status of martyrs with many proclaiming “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie). Such was the groundswell of support for the magazine (which barely sold 30,000 issues and was headed for bankruptcy) that it sold one million copies of the latest issue and is printing more. But I wonder: is this the way we should react when free speech is threatened or attacked regardless of the content and the nature of such free speech?Charlie Hebdo is a hardcore left-wing magazine. Most of its articles deal with issues like the economy, social justice, culture, politics and so forth. Charlie has even raised its voice against the discrimination that Muslims experience in France. The problem is that several of its articles and cartoons have involved a very brutal form of satirical humor that has been extremely offensive to many groups, not only Muslims. Consider the following cartoon that was published by Charlie in 2012 regarding the opposition of Catholics in France to gay marriage, which proclaims that a vocal opponent of gay marriage at the time, Cardinal Vingt-Trois, had three fathers; the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost, which are featured having sexual relations.

This cartoon created uproar within the catholic French community, but others felt it was justified due to the intense campaign against gay marriage led by catholic groups which many considered homophobic. There is no doubt that Charlie had a right to publish this cartoon, as well as the cartoons of the prophet Muhamad. The question, however, is whether it was wise. Taking the example of the above cartoon, many Christians are for gay marriage, but a cartoon like the one above offends almost all Christians. Similarly the vast majority of Muslims are against terrorism, but a cartoon ridiculing their most prominent religious figure or their holy book will offend almost all of them. This is my beef with Charlie’s approach, even if they have a right to follow it. But what to do now when Charlie’s right to free speech has been so brutally repressed? Buy the new issue with yet another Muhamad cartoon in the cover and declare in solidarity “Je suis Charlie”? For reference let’s check some cases closer to home here in the US where free speech was attacked. The publisher of the pornographic magazine Hustler, Larry Flint, went through several obscenity trials and was shot and paralyzed from the waist down in 1978 by a white supremacist who was angered because Hustler featured an issue of a black man having sex with a white woman. So in support of free speech should we have bought the magazine? In 1987 the artist Andres Serrano took a photograph of a small crucifix immersed in a glass of his own urine (Piss Christ). The photograph went on to cause scandals when it was exhibited at galleries with the artist receiving death threats and losing grants to pursue his work. In support of his free speech should we have bought copies of the photograph and attended his exhibitions? In 1992 the band Body Count put out an album containing a song written by their lead vocalist Ice-T, called “Cop Killer”, which describes in expletive-riddled terms how an individual fed up with police brutality sets out to kill police officers. The backlash against the artist and the record company was so great that the album was reissued with the song removed. To defend free speech should we have bought the original album? My answer to these questions is “No”. You can support free speech without necessarily supporting a specific artist, even when their free speech is under attack. I believe Charlie Hebdo has its heart in the right place. It addresses valid issues that others may miss or shy from addressing, and it has paid a high price for doing so. In no uncertain way I condemn the despicable killing of its staff, which should not be tolerated or allowed to become a muzzle for free speech. However, I will not be buying the new issue. “Je ne suis pas Charlie” (I am not Charlie). I believe that what they do can be done in a way that generates less heat and more light.What do you think?

***

If you like this blog you can have links to new blog posts delivered to your e-mail address. Please click here.

I went to see Britain’s Finest, an act that bills itself as the best Beatles tribute band. As expected most of the crowd were old fogies on a nostalgia trip like me, but I was surprised to see many young people too. The beginning of the show started with the music of the Ed Sullivan show (which introduced the Beatle to the US), and when the curtain lifted, the four lads dressed in the classic Beatle’s gear from the sixties made their appearance and begun playing all the early favorites including “She loves you”, “I want to hold your hand”, “Help”, “A Hard Day’s Night”, “Can’t Buy Me Love” and so forth. In between songs they added funny comments spoken with a British accent that got the crowd laughing (e.g. “we now want to play a song that we composed recently about fifty years ago”). They ended the first part of the concert with the song “Twist and Shout” which got everyone clapping and dancing.

The next part of the show is the one I was interested in. Most tribute bands merely imitate the original band, which of course is the whole point, but to me this does not have a lot of artistic merit. However, the Beatles stopped touring in 1966. As a result of this, and with the exception of the “Let it Be” rooftop concert in the eponymous movie and the fab four’s solo efforts, we have no idea how the Beatles would have played many of their later songs live. This meant that the members of the tribute band would have to actually create what a Beatles concert would have been like. And this they did magnificently. The second part of the show was preceded by sitar music played over the loudspeakers, and when the curtains lifted the band appeared in full Sergeant Pepper’s regalia playing, of course, “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” and then easing into “With a Little Help from my Friends” with the vocals sung by the drummer who played the part of Ringo. This section of the concert featured songs including “Come Together”, “Hello Goodbye”, “Penny Lane”, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” and a costume transition of the band members to the Abbey Road phase of the Beatles. The guy who played Lennon donned a wig, round glasses, and sang an acoustic version of “Strawberry Fields”. The guy who played Paul also sang “Yesterday” and “Blackbird” to the delight of the audience, and the guy who played George sang the second most covered Beatle song (after “Yesterday”) “Something”. The show ended with the audience singing and clapping to “Get Back”, and the band came back for an encore where they sang “Hey Jude” joined by all the audience. I left the venue with the feeling that I had attended a concert by the real act hearing the legendary music that is still listened to today even by the new generations.Beatles 4 Ever! R.I.P. John and George

***

If you like this blog you can have links to new blog posts delivered to your e-mail address. Please click here.

Here we are again in the middle of another Soccer World Cup. In the media we see images of the whole world all revved up with enthusiasm for the so-called "King of Sports" or "The Most Popular Sport in the Planet". But here in the United States a majority of Americans are once again left wondering what the hoopla is all about and perplexed at the passion soccer evokes. Soccer indeed can stir up very strong emotions. Wars have been started or temporarily suspended as a result of soccer matches. People have died or been injured as a result of clashes between soccer fans, and some people have been known to commit suicide when their team did not win the World Cup. Players have been marginalized for the rest of their lives, retired, or even killed for failing to win a game or for committing a crucial mistake that led to the loss of a game. Referees have had to go into hiding for making a call considered unfair. The lives of entire groups of people around the globe revolve around the performance of their favorite teams, and the productivity of entire regions in certain countries goes up or down depending on whether the local soccer team wins. Certain teams and specific players have become legends. Their names and their feats are enshrined in museums and celebrated in word and song. Certain infamous games or goals or other events during the game where a team was "cheated" of a win, linger in the collective consciousness of countries decades after the fact. Some are even still discussed and analyzed nowadays with computer technology applied to ancient archival footage. When the national teams play in a World Cup all the activity in certain countries comes to a halt. The streets become deserted. No one works, including the police, which is not a problem because all the criminals are also watching the game. If the team wins there is a huge celebration with people stopping traffic and dancing in the streets. If the team loses the whole country goes into a long period of mourning as though a national catastrophe had occurred. So many people ask themselves: What is it with Americans? Why haven't they caught the soccer bug like everyone else? Why do they prefer this sport the rest of the world calls "American Football" over soccer? This question is even more relevant if you consider that soccer is the most popular (even more than football) youth participation sport in the United States up to the age of 13. I have investigated a little and have found that several explanations have been proposed ranging from the plausible to the whimsical. Let's take a look. 1) Not enough scoring Americans say that watching soccer is like having fun watching the grass grow. They claim that there is not enough scoring for the amount of time that one spends watching the actual game. The average number of total goals per game in world cup soccer from 1990 onward is about 2 to 3, whereas the average number of touchdowns per NFL football game has seen an uptick in recent years and was 4.92 in 2011. So there are more touchdowns per game in football than goals in soccer. But of course football is not a game of touchdowns; football is a game of points. Each touchdown is 6 points but you also have the option of kicking a field goal for 3 points (of course after a touchdown a team can go for the extra point kick or the 2 point conversion, but this is only after a touchdown). So in this aspect football does have an additional scoring mechanism besides touchdowns that makes it difficult for a game to end up scoreless. The last scoreless game in NFL history was back in 1943, whereas scoreless games in soccer are quite common. To this consideration you also have to add game times. In professional soccer you have 2 halves of 45 minutes for a total of 90 minutes of game time whereas professional football has 4 quarters of 15 minutes each for a total of 60 minutes of game time. So if scoring is important for Americans, football does come out ahead. 2) Not enough timeouts Americans like their timeouts and have no patience for a constant action game like soccer. In football the clock does stop after certain plays and if the game is broadcast on television TV timeouts are taken. All this can extend the actual length of a football game (from start to finish) to more than 3 hours. By comparison in soccer there is only a 15 minute rest period between halves making the actual start to finish length of a soccer game 105 minutes. So if Americans like timeouts then football is more suited for them. 3) Lack of physicality, the game is not violent or "manly" enough. Americans tend to like physical sports and they argue soccer is not physical enough. At high school or college level a common derogatory comment about soccer is that "it is a sport for girls". The fact that the U.S. woman's soccer team has won the Woman's World cup 2 times with 1 second and 3 third places finished, while the men's team has only achieved a third place finish back in 1930 of course does not help. Football is arguably a more physical sport than soccer. Despite all the protective gear, many football players suffer serious injuries regularly and many players experience injuries that still pain them many years after they have retired and that require multiple surgeries. The average NFL player's career lasts about 3.8 years whereas soccer players can play well into their thirties with careers lasting 10 years or more. There is also the fact that many soccer players feign an injury to hoax the referee into calling a penalty or have the other player expelled. This is considered by many Americans to be dishonest sissy-like behavior not becoming of a man. So if indeed physical manly confrontation is what Americans want then this is a reason to prefer Football.

4) Football is "Institutionalized" It is argued that, as opposed to soccer, the nature of football with its timeouts fits just right into American corporate and consumer culture. It is also argued that the popularity of football at the college level has turned it into huge money-making enterprise. The above create an insurmountable barrier for soccer to become popular in the United States. These seem also valid reasons for the difficulty that soccer has encountered in becoming more mainstream in the United States. 5) There are too many sports in the U.S. Another argument is that the sport's market in the United States is saturated. Football reigns supreme, but basketball, baseball, ice hockey, golf, etc. mop up the rest of soccer's potential fans. So soccer does not compete only against football for fans but against all those other sports. This is another plausible reason too why soccer has had trouble gaining traction in the United States. 6) You can't use your hands. It has been argued that there is something about being able to use your hands that runs deep within the "can do" American psyche or its "pioneer spirit". That is why sports invented in the U.S. such as football, baseball and basketball all involve using your hands. Because of this a sport like soccer is anathema to Americans. I don't know if this is true but there may be something to it. 7) Americans are not good at soccer and don't like it because they can't dance. There is the perception by many that, despite some exceptions, the average American guy cannot dance very well and feels uncomfortable about even trying it. Thus, because soccer requires the major footwork and leg to hip coordination that comes naturally from dancing, American guys are not good at it and can't relate to it. I am not sure that in general being a better dancer makes you a better soccer player or a more enthusiastic soccer fan. With regards to the "better player" part of this claim, you would have to argue that how good of a dancer the average guy is, somehow relates to the number of World Cups their country has won. The way it stands now it is (World Cups per country): Brazil 5 Italy 4 Germany 3 Argentina & Uruguay 2 England 1 France 1 Spain 1 So there you have it, are the Brazilian and Italian guys better dancers than the English, the French, and the Spanish (with the German, Argentinean and Uruguayans in between)? 8) No cheerleaders. It has been argued that Americans (here I guess this means guys) prefer football to soccer because of the cheerleaders (soccer in the U.S. doesn't have cheerleaders). After all, what good is a sport without a little porn? No comment. These are some of the reasons that have been put forward to explain why Americans have not caught the soccer bug. Please feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you think about them and suggest any other explanations that you may have.

***

If you like this blog you can have links to new blog posts delivered to your e-mail address. Please click here.

The folks at NASA set up a few streaming video cameras in the International Space Station, so you can watch a video of the Earth as viewed from Space in real time as the station orbits around the Earth (click on the picture below). You can also check the map to see where in its orbit the station is. If it's in the dark side of the Earth the screen will be black. If it's changing from one camera to the other the screen will be gray momentarily. If you watch long enough you will be able to see the Earth light up or get dark as the station goes from sunrise to sunset and back!

What is the most abundant cell type in our bodies? The surprising answer is: bacteria. Bacteria in our gut outnumber the cells in our bodies by a ten to one ratio. Although we don’t normally think about bacteria as forming part of our bodies, our physiology and biochemistry is inextricably intertwined with these denizens of our bowels, and the extent of this relationship is just beginning to be untraveled. It is known that bacteria can affect our bodies by producing certain chemicals that cause a variety of effects on the immune system and on organs like the intestine or the liver. But what is not well known is whether bacteria can also affect our brains. For example, researchers found out that when they fed mice antibiotics this caused a change in their behavior. These antibiotic-fed mice exhibited an increase in their exploratory activities and certain changes in their brain chemistry. When the researcher fed the antibiotics to the same strain of mice bred in sterile conditions (i.e. no bacteria in their guts), the behavior of the mice did not change and they experienced no alteration in brain chemistry. This indicated that the changes in gut bacteria brought about by the antibiotics were responsible for the alteration of the behavior of the mice. Another group of researchers performed an experiment where they fed groups of mice high-fat diets. The scientist treated some of the high-fat diet fed mice with a probiotic. This is a preparation of selected strains of bacteria thought to be beneficial for the intestine. Prolonged treatment with probiotics leads to a change in the bacterial makeup of the gut. The probiotic treatment prevented the mice from becoming obese, and the researchers found that this was associated with a decrease in food intake and an increase in certain blood hormones associated with the induction of satiety. When the scientists analyzed the brain of the probiotic-treated mice they found changes in the levels of expression of genes associated with the reduction of hunger and the increase in satiety. Of course these are animal experiments, but there are several conditions in humans involving changes in gut bacteria such as irritable bowel syndrome that are accompanied by feelings of anxiety and depression, and certain psychiatric conditions are also believed to be affected by the makeup of the bacteria of the gut. So next time you experience some mood swings during a bout of intestinal distress, take a good look at the remnants of your last meal as they disappear down the toilet. They may be related to what you are thinking or feeling more than you care to know!Image of gut bacteria by Janice Carr, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

***

If you like this blog you can have links to new blog posts delivered to your e-mail address. Please click here.

This brought a tear to my eye. Leader-clad motorcyclists with tattoos and helmets are the least thing you would associate with preventing child abuse. But this group,BACA (Bikers Against Child Abuse) does just that.

***If you like this blog you can have links to new blog posts delivered to your e-mail address. Please clickhere.

I have written a bit about my book The Sun Zebra, but today I decided to take a look at what others have written about it. So I copied all the 70 reviews that my book has on amazon into a document and eliminated obvious words like the names of the characters or the stories. Then I downloaded the remaining words into tagcrowd.com to to produce a tag cloud. In the results below the size of the word and its shade of blue is proportional to the number of times it is mentioned.

But this is a bird’s eye view of the book reviews. When you go into the actual reviews a very complex picture emerges. Although I’ve seen it happen many times, still it never ceases to amaze me how people can look at the same thing and arrive at different conclusions. Consider the following opinions:“Over all, this is a mediocre read that could use some polishing and a bit more flair.” and“By the way, this is the first E-book I've read that was properly edited! Sentence structure, spelling, punctuation are all perfect.” Or consider:“Nothing spectacular to keep the reader wanting more. I finished it but it was more like a chore.” and“This book was such a dramatic change of pace from everything I've read recently that I was surprised by it. It was absolutely beautiful.” And there were some unexpected things too. Some of the readers did not state accurately in their reviews how many stories there are in the book. Some wrote that there are four stories in the book while others wrote there are seven (the actual number is five). Also several reviewers seemed to think the events described in the book are real! They are actually a mix of fact and fiction, but it has much more of the latter (I will probably write about this in a future post). Additionally several people were bothered by the parenting approach of Nell’s father who sometimes lies to his daughter to either protect her or to not “burst her bubble.” Several readers named a favorite story. If we assign one point per favorite (including ties) and 0.5 points per second favorite the tally is: The meaningless Christmas Tree 8.5 The Sun Zebra 5.5 Bob The Intrepid Insectnaut! 1 Raven-Lenore 1 The Meaningless Christmas Tree is indeed a very powerful story, so it is fitting that it is at the top of the list. The only story that so far no one has named as their favorite is Birdman and the Fairytale. One reviewer wrote that my stories were reminiscent of the stories written by James Herriotbecause of the animals in some of the stories. Several reviewers stated that the stories reminded them of moments they spent with their kids, and some even shared them with their children. This was interesting as I had conceived this book as a “children’s book for adults” because all the stories deal in one way or another with death and aging. Ray Bradbury once wrote that when he read his old books he would think “wow, did I write that?” I guess that it is unavoidable for authors to fall in love with their work. However, it has been said that when your own work moves you to tears or makes you laugh that is not good, as you end up invariably becoming too full of yourself. And I think that is my problem. Every time I reread The Sun Zebra I laugh or shed a tear. But since many readers have stated in their reviews or messages to me that the stories made them laugh and cry, I guess then that I am not alone! So today I want to thank all the wonderful complex people that read The Sun Zebra, and I hope that when I publish my next book you will like it too. Take care, Rolando

***If you like this blog you can have links to new blog posts delivered to your e-mail address. Please click here.

A hieroglyphic on a wall of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt reads: Man, know thyself and thou shalt know the Gods. This maxim, often shortened to “know thyself,” is a recurring motif in philosophical thought. The idea behind this teaching refers to knowledge about our inner selves, and gaining that knowledge is often a lifelong process requiring much effort and sacrifice. However, technological advances have made it possible for individuals to effortlessly gain a type of vital knowledge about themselves that was not contemplated by ancient philosophers: the knowledge contained in the genes. Ancestry is one aspect of the knowledge that can be glimpsed from sequencing the genes of a person. Unlike most molecules in nature, the molecules of DNA contained in our cells are historical documents. They contain information about who our ancestors were, and combined with other information can reveal to us where we came from. Nowadays there are several companies that offer to sequence your genes and provide this kind of information. But the most important information that the genes can reveal to an individual is about that person’s health. In the years following the completion of the human genome project, scientists have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge about the effects of genes on the risk of acquiring certain diseases. A recent high visibility example of what this knowledge can be used for was when the actress Angelina Jolie decided to undergo a double mastectomy after learning that she has a mutation in a gene called BRCA1 that greatly increases her risk of breast cancer. As with ancestry, there are several companies that offer their services to sequence genes and provide individuals with information on how their genetic makeup can affect their health. For example, you can learn if you have defective genes that could make treatment with certain drugs fatal or if you have certain genes that can increase your chance of suffering conditions like stroke or diabetes. This genetic information can also be used by doctors to tailor the treatment patients will receive and has the potential to usher in a new era in personalized medicine.

However, genetic knowledge can be a double-edged sword. There are some diseases for which there is no cure. In those cases a positive result for a defective gene will basically tell individuals how and approximately when they will die, which is not the knowledge most people may want to have. Additionally, genetic information has the potential to be used by insurance companies to calculate the risks of insuring a given individual and charge higher premiums or refuse coverage. And what about finding a mate? Do you have the right to know the genetic information of the person you want to marry? What if you found out that the person you love and wish to marry has a genetic makeup that when combined with your own will produce a child with a severe disease? Also, what if governments or institutions with racial or ethnic agendas use this information in troublesome ways? Imagine the likes of a Hitler having access to the genetic information of every single individual in the country. Accessibility to genetic knowledge raises as many questions as it answers. Currently, sequencing part of a person’s genome to derive ancestry or some health information is affordable, but sequencing the full complement of genes costs several thousand dollars and is outside the reach of the average person. However, technological advancements are reducing sequencing times and making the process cheaper. It is conceivable that within a decade not only will full genetic information be accessible to the average person, but it may even be part of the routine tests that are applied when babies are born. What will we do with that information? Where will it be stored? Who will read it? Perhaps the Egyptian who carved that maxim in the temple of Luxor had a point. Should we first know ourselves before we know our genes?Photo credits:Double Helix: Jun Seita / Foter.com / CC BY-NCTemple of Luxor: dorena-wm / Foter.com / CC BY-ND

***If you like this blog you can have links to new blog posts delivered to your e-mail address. Please click here.

Astronaut Chris Hadfield recorded a fantastic version of David Bowie’s Space Oddity while circling the Earth in the International Space Station. While I like the music and the views of the Earth from space, this video got me thinking about a very common mistake that people make when they see videos of objects or people floating inside the space station. This is the notion that this happens because there is no gravity. The confusion is further exacerbated because this situation is often referred to as “zero g.” In today’s blog we will see why this is not the case. To understand what is going on in space let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine that you are standing on top of a high diving platform holding a pencil. As you jump from the platform you let go of the pencil and for a few seconds before you hit the water the pencil will appear to “float” next to you. Is the pencil in this situation experiencing no gravity? Of course not, the pencil is falling alongside you. Now consider this. Suppose in the instant you jump and let go of the pencil a room magically materializes around you in such a way that you are not in contact with any of its surfaces. This room is falling at the same speed you and the pencil are falling, but the room has a camera in a corner pointed towards you. During those few seconds before the room and you hit the water, the camera will record you and the pencil apparently floating in the middle of the room. An observer who watches the camera footage of those few seconds migt conclude that you and the pencil are floating impervious to gravity, but this is not true: you are falling. This situation is identical to what you see in the video of Chris’s guitar spinning in space and him floating next to it. Chris and his guitar inside the International Space Station are no more floating or impervious to gravity than you and the pencil would be inside that hypothetical room. The reason astronauts appear to float is that (as in the example of the room) they are falling towards the Earth along with the space station around them. But if this is true, why doesn’t the space station crash and burn? The reason is that even though it is falling towards Earth, the space station is moving at the right speed parallel to Earth’s surface. If the surface of the Earth were flat the space station would eventually hit the ground. However, because the Earth is round it curves as the station falls, and the speed of the station is carefully controlled to maintain this balance. As a result of this the space station maintains a roughly constant distance from the Earth’s surface even though it is falling towards it. “Here am I floating round my tin canFar above the MoonPlanet Earth is blueAnd there's nothing left to do.” So you see, in the realm of the space station gravity is alive and well. Contrary to the song’s lyrics, the space station and its singing astronaut are not “floating,” they are falling towards Earth, but their speed and direction is such that they never reach the ground. ***If you like this blog you can have links to new blog posts delivered to your e-mail address. Please click here.